Obama's One Million Electric Car Goal:

Which brings up an interesting point: are those who want government out of our lives and smaller government willing to pay the ACTUAL costs of gasoline, without government subsidies? Or is that part of market interference OK?

Raees wrote: Which brings up an interesting point: are those who want government out of our lives and smaller government willing to pay the ACTUAL costs of gasoline, without government subsidies? Or is that part of market interference OK?

Here's the problem. They're currently involved. If they pull out completely and quickly, the market wouldn't have time to adjust. If they'd begin a program of reducing the subsidies to allow the market to normalize without any sudden economy shattering jumps - yes, I'd be all for it.

As long as they drop the taxes on Gasoline in the same time frame.

That would be a great way to subsidize the alternate fuels industry, encourage telecommuting... all while cutting the budget.

Win win!

Raees wrote: Why is the right against cleaner cars to help the environment?

Perhaps because taking every light vehicle off every road in the union would lower our annual emissions by roughly 15% from what they are right now? That's a complete prohibition on having any personal vehicles Raees, not simply reducing the emissions from them by 10% or 20% through stricter regulations which add thousands of dollars to the cost of purchasing and maintaining the vehicle. The entity most responsible for the war on the middle class? The federal government and its regulatory burdens. The federal government has quintupled payroll taxes on the middle class during my lifetime. It has added thousands of dollars every year to the cost of everything I purchase in the form of regulatory compliance from food to refrigerators to automobiles to housing.

Raees wrote: Which brings up an interesting point: are those who want government out of our lives and smaller government willing to pay the ACTUAL costs of gasoline, without government subsidies? Or is that part of market interference OK?

You are labeling the ability to deduct costs from revenue before determining taxes as a subsidy in your question, right? Do you want to get rid of the cost of labor in the tax equation as well or simply the cost of raw materials and exploration?

Somewhere, somehow we are not paying the actual costs of gasoline in the U.S. I'm sure the gas companies aren't taking it in the shorts.

No, they are earning a reasonable return on their investments. It should be noted, however, that the federal government gets paid $0.184 for every gallon of gas sold ($0.244 for diesel), so they are earning roughly the same amount of money as the oil companies are on every gallon of fuel sold. One might argue that the federal take is at least as obscene as the profits earned by the oil companies given that reality. Especially since the majority of the tax per gallon was enacted as a "deficit reduction" measure roughly 30 years ago. A brilliant bit of marketing and PR work by the federal government requires that the taxes be included in the cost displayed at the pump. Can you imagine the outrage the public would be voicing if the tax wasn't included in the price and was added onto the purchase total as it is on nearly every other purchase? With State and local taxes, the total tax per gallon is in the neighborhood of $0.49 per gallon on average (in Colorado it is $0.389 per gallon for gas and $0.424 per gallon for diesel).

Raees wrote: Somewhere, somehow we are not paying the actual costs of gasoline in the U.S. I'm sure the gas companies aren't taking it in the shorts.

No, they're getting $4billion/year unnecessary subsidies while making the biggest obscene corporate profits in history, and gouging us at the pump with our own money.

And Obama enacted the largest tax in the history of the union when he signed the ACA. We're talking gross dollars in both instances, so the claims are equally valid, right SFB?